Reply
Sat 27 Nov, 2010 06:05 pm
JPLosman0711 wrote:
I want to hear all your ideas............
Do you recall when I mentioned to you that now when I listen to people I know right away if they know what they are talking about? To demonstrate what I said to you I'm going to take quite a few liberties with what you posted. It is an extremely simple sentence, but as we go through it together you will get an 'inkling' of the 'labyrinth' I have been referring to.
The dictionary defines “idea” as:
“any 'conception' existing in the 'mind' as a result of 'mental understanding', 'awareness', or 'activity'.”
#1. The very first thing you should notice is that when it comes to reading the dictionary we don't question what it says. Not even for a nanosecond do we even recognize the possibility of questioning the dictionary. We just blindly read it as if it is the final authority in the matter (“God”). Take a moment for that to sink in. Ever since the moment you could say the word 'dictionary' it has determined your 'existence' and you haven't even noticed that you didn't have a choice in the matter.
#2. The next thing you should notice is that 'idea' is associated with the words 'conception', 'mind', 'mental' 'understanding', 'awareness', and 'activity'.
Let's take a look at those words.
Conception: the act of conceiving; the state of being conceived; a notion; idea; concept:
Mind: the element, part, substance or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc.; the processes of the human mind. (in other words, it's ”the processes of the human mind” that determine the existence of Mind, so, Mind defines Mind. What the hell!!)
Mental: of or pertaining to the mind (see the definition above)
Understanding: mental process of a person who comprehends; comprehension; personal interpretation: (see 'Mental' and then 'Mind', above)
Awareness: having knowledge; conscious; cognizant:
Activity: the state or quality of being active
One other word we should address that is not included in the definition of 'idea'.
Characteristic: a distinguishing quality, attribute or trait
#3. Review the list of words above. All of those words (concepts) represent one word which is the word 'idea' (concept). We use Mind to define Mind and 'concepts' to validate 'concepts'. We never question what we are doing and never question the measurability (length, width, depth, locality, mass) of the 'concept' we are using. Take a moment to notice and you will see that all of the words used to define 'idea' are 'concepts', representations of Be-ing/living, they are not living, Be-ing.
#4. Another pattern you should take note of is that in the case of 'Conception', 'idea' is used to define 'Conception' and that a 'Conception' is a concept. So, 'Conception' is a concept that defines the word 'idea' and an 'idea' is a 'Conception'. What's up with that? The only thing in the definition of 'Conception' that seems to come close to being accurate is the part where it says “being conceived”, which points to Be-ing/thinking.
#5. Mind uses “the processes of the Mind to define itself, Mental uses Mind to define itself, and Understanding uses Mind and Mental to define itself. Let's address the word 'Mind' first, it seems to be the keystone that holds the flim-flam all together.
As part of our agreements with each other, we require “proof of existence” before we accept that entities exist. 'Proof of existence' is determined by 2 criteria, measurability (length, width, depth, locality, mass) and definability. Both measurability and definability have to be present before 'proof of existence' can be accepted. Mind (and just about every other concept) has plenty of definability and absolutely no measurability. Why is it that humanity (yeh, you) demands that we use measurability and definability as the criteria for 'proof of existence' only to give a pass to Mind (and just about every other concept) when it comes to measurability? Don't you find that to be a little curious?
Mind is an ethereal concept which defines itself. It is assumed that when we think, that thinking has to come from somewhere, so mind is a representation of a container that stores 'thoughts'. Mind was inserted into our language prior to 900 AD.
The existence of Mind can't be proven. Since Mind doesn't exist what do we do with the words 'Mental' and 'Understanding' which are defined by Mind?
Is all of this becoming a little confusing? If the answer is yes, then we are on the right track. In Japan, temples have two beasts sitting on either side of the door. I opine that the temples represent Be-ing and the beasts represent confusion and doubt. You have to go through confusion and doubt to enter the temple, to 'Be' who you are. Actually, I find that you're already Be-ing who you are and letting the confusion and doubt distract you from Be-ing.
#6. Out of all those words that are used to define 'idea' there are only two characteristics which come close to representing the word 'idea'. In the definition of 'Conception' you have 'Be-ing conceived' and in the definition 'Activity' you have 'Be-ing active'. 'Idea' is a representation of the 'act' of 'conceiving'. It is a process, not a 'thing' that you yank out of a container called Mind.
#7. Glance over the words and definitions (above) and notice that if anybody tried to flim-flam you with all that misdirection, you would tell them to get the hell out of your life, pronto. You have given Merriam-Webster the status of “God” in your life and you operate (blindly) as if Merriam-Webster is “God”.
#8. The last thing you should notice is that all of this was started by one little word, 'idea', which has led to another word and then to another word and on and on. We are “The Tower of Babel”. The world dictates our existence by using a labyrinth of measurability and definability as the standard to represent Be-ing. You confuse your 'self' with the concepts of the world and turn your 'self' into a 'thing' instead of Be-ing your 'self'.
Nobody, and I really mean nobody, can disentangle you from the labyrinth of 'mis-conceptions' and presuppositions. The purpose of this is to remind you that's your job to do. Most people don't know that they need to do a serious and systematic study to attain their freedom. They actually think that it's something they are entitled to as a consequence of a proclamation or by fighting a series of wars.
Nobody cares if you do the work. As a matter-of-fact they wish you wouldn't, because you will be a reminder that they aren't getting their job done.
If you can't 'hear' what I'm saying and it is not calling out to you to do something about your freedom, then maybe you should click on the “Dasein” link and then click on the “Ignore User” button. Keep yourself from going through the aggravation of asking me to explain only to have me respond by telling you that it can't be explained. Until the day I disappear from this forum I will keep posting. You don't have to keep reading what I post.
If you want to argue with me about what I've written, that's okay. Just don't expect me to participate in your argument. I'll click on the 'Ignore User' button for you.
JPL; Remember your post which started all of this: "I want to hear all your ideas............"
I don't have any ideas.
@Dasein,
...I will ignore you all right preacher, you are becoming crystal clear now...
...should have seen it earlier do...oh well, better later then never...
@Dasein,
You might have saved a few dozen words had you simply referred to
paradigms (Kuhn) or
language games (Wittgenstein) in your deconstruction of "ideas".
@fresco,
Saving words wasn't my primary motivation. 'Deconstruction' doesn't produce the same result as the process of deconstructing 'ideas'. Thanks for reading and commenting.
@Dasein,
Could you define freedom, or maybe "philosophical" freedom, as the absence of presupposition?
You argue that what prevents us from being "free" is all of our "mis-conceptions" and presuppositions, which go "un-scrutinised", and thus in a way come to determine our thinking.
To say that we can "Attain freedom" by engaging in study, and by breaking down "mis-conceptions", almost sounds as if once "freedom" is attained, then we no longer "have" ideas in a strange way.
How can you possibly achieve what you seem to be implying? The very fact that you posted this demonstrates that you do have ideas and presuppositions, which ultimately means that you are not "free", in your own terms.
@existential potential,
I have a response to your query however, my response will be part of the book I am writing because a "quick response" will not do any justice to your questions.
Not only that but the response to your inquiry requires a proper setup and follow through so that the "hallway conversation" isn't taken out of context.
Thanks for the contribution to my book.
@Dasein,
Come on...at least give me something to work with in the meantime!
how long do I have to wait for your book?
@existential potential,
Be-ing is like a swing in the park, and all it knows how to do is go back and forth, up and down. Then some fat kid sits on it and slows it down, the swing still continues to go back and forth, up and down because that's all it knows how to do.
In this illustration, 'you' are the swing and all our ideas and concepts are the fat kid sitting on you. No matter how 'heavy' the kid is, you still keep swinging don't you?
@JPLosman0711,
what's the meaning of the continuous swinging? swings do not continuously move, swings require something else to move them.
@existential potential,
There is no 'meaning', that would contribute to the 'heaviness' of the kid.
It's hypothetical.
When you're 'asleep', do you require someone to breathe for you or beat your heart? When you're 'awake', do you require someone to digest the food you just ate? What about all the blood that's constantly flowing through you, who's doing that? It sort of just does it by itself, doesn't it?
@JPLosman0711,
You kinda "painted yourself into a corner" with this one. I know what you're saying however your analogy needs some work. - LOL
Using the processes of the body doesn't quite nail it either because the body has 'birth' and 'demise'.
@Dasein,
Regardless of JPLosman0711's comment, I'm yet to hear you, Dasein, reply to my query about freedom and presupposition...at least substantially anyway.
@Dasein,
Quote:If you want to argue with me about what I've written, that's okay. Just don't expect me to participate in your argument. I'll click on the 'Ignore User' button for you.
In an OP, this is an amusing thing to say 'I don't want to hear anyone disagree, because if you do I'll deem you have nothing of value to say, and I shall put you on ignore'
As for Freedom...I'm up in the air about what it is. No one seems to be able to define it in a constructive way (a way that doesn't end in destruction) without adding a balancing equation to it.
The 'no one questions a dictionary' line was probably misplaced here where many people struggle to find a word to define their concept, and often resort on creating their own definition of a word (in order to describe their concept).
Freedom from formal language (in this case English) would result in other types of 'imprisonment' (very loosely defining imprisonment here to mean 'barriers/paradigms/communicative languages/etc'.
It is of course our attachment to a thing that creates (unsurprisingly) a link to it that we may not even be aware of, and therefore may determine our actions without our knowledge. Freedom from those links are good in some ways, and not so good in other ways...
@vikorr,
"Freedom from formal language (in this case English) would result in other types of 'imprisonment' (very loosely defining imprisonment here to mean 'barriers/paradigms/communicative languages/etc"-
Thats kind of what I thought. To be from all presuppositions would be impossible, because you need them in order to communicate in a coherent way through language.
So my point is that Dasein has not "Attained freedom", inasmuch as he, by creating this discussion, has had to conform to the rules and presuppositions of language.
@existential potential,
You made a request for me to answer a question. Instead of ignoring your request, I replied that I'm working on a book and what you asked will be addressed in the book. You made a request. I made a promise to include it in my book and not post it here. I am going to keep that promise.
You said:
Quote:has had to conform to the rules and presuppositions of language
These 'rules' are the rules you subscribe to and according to you I am not allowed to express my 'self' outside of your rules or expectations.
You made another request by asking that I play by your rules. I decline i.e., I promise not to play by 'your' rules.
In summary, because you didn't get the answer you wanted you're going to throw a tantrum and disguise it as an intellectual challenge in an attempt to manipulate me into giving you what you want.
Grow up.
@Dasein,
When can I read your book?
@existential potential,
With your approval, I will send you a personal message when it's done. Depending on the situation, I may comment on it's progress in this forum. As I understand the rules of this forum, I can't blatantly advertise where you can buy it, but if you periodically go to my profile page and send a personal message I can respond to your request.
Sorry for the 'wishy-washy' response. I want to make sure I adhere to the rules of this forum. I know that we'll find a way when the book is done.
Thank you.
@Dasein,
It would be nice to have a response as to when you have finished the book. However, you will not end up breaking the rules of this forum by directly responding to my query on here. I know you said that my query will be addressed within the pages of your book, but it just seems a little pointless to create a discussion, and then refuse to properly reply to the comments that you receive, and instead refer the people who made those comments, to the book that you are currently writing.
I want a discussion, not a book.
@vikorr,
I am on the edge of my seat. Due to the different variables in this equation one has to consider all the determining factors, including free will, conscience, being guilty and all sorts of other very reasonable a logical conclusions. Never before has there been such a pressing for understanding as there is in todays' society, given its rules and regulations one cannot help but feel enraptured by the different directions of thought it may lead to. Are we in decline? Do we not feel the least bit of sorrow and remorse for the ones we have left behind?
Perhaps it could be said that introducing our new Brain Wave technology we can have a much more uplifting and spiritual view of the future. Thanks to this incredible technology, we are now able to precisely predict the actions of everything and everyone around us to ensure a positive outcome in any given situation. Having said that, we are also aware of the religious uproar that will no doubt take place due to this new release. Are we to control them as well? Or will their brains be to strong and upheld by their father figure in the sky to have any effect? Only time will tell.
I am sending you this message as warning to all who should read it, suck your brains out of your ear while you can. Given the extremity of the situation, I thought it appropriate to map out certain areas of concentrated camps where we could have these procedures performed. One place will be at our military bases over in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and whichever other country we happen to be invading. Due to the extremely low I.Q. of these individuals, we assume their brains will go quietly.
I urge you to take this as a precaution and do something about this while you still can. I have found that the majority of my warnings were not taken seriously and I fear that they will suffer the consequences of their ignorance. Do not be one of them.
We now plan to move in a more smooth and productive direction going forward, once we have all the minds either controlled or removed, we will be able to begin our 'transformation'. I'm sure you are not familiar with this so allow me to explain. The transformation will consist of our world leaders(the real ones, not those silly politicians) finally coming down from the sky and showing themselves for the first time. Then, they will assume command of planet earth and all who inhibit(or used to) it. This will send us in a completely free and open direction for our future.
Not only will they be able to liberate us from the prisons of language, we will be able to explore all the worlds that it was holding us back from. Sasquahilli, Tanntano, Guysheene, and Gorgonzolan are just a few of them in which we plan to explore. With all the minds either not being there or controlled, each one of us will no longer have to deal with the entanglements of language.
Can I get an amen?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace